Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-1995 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - MAY 8, 1995 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, May 8, 1995, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston. ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. CLOSED SESSION ITEM ADDED TO AGENDA 7:04 p.m. 10.3 (600-30) Mayor Houston announced the need for the City Council to add a closed session item to the agenda. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, subdivision (b)(2), there is a need to take immediate action for the full Council to meet pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to give direction to the committee (consisting of the Mayor and Cm. Barnes) which was appointed to negotiate with the City Manager regarding compensation; that the need for action came to the attention of the City after the agenda was posted in the form of information relative to compensation; that it is necessary to hold a closed session tonight in order to have time to receive direction from the full Council, negotiate with the City Manager and return to the full Council on a regularly scheduled agenda with a proposal for amendment to the City Manager's employment agreement prior to the close of the current fiscal year; and that the closed session be added to the Agenda as Item 10.3 pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Budon, and by unanimous vote, the Council added to agenda: Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) - City Negotiators: Mayor Houston and Cm. Barnes - Unrepresented employee: City Manager. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 261 The Council will not consider closed session item 10.2. City Council Aqendas (610-10) Elliott Healy, 11362 Betlen Drive stated he came across a notice that the Pleasanton City Council is starting to put their agenda highlights in the form of an announcement. This is a good idea. Our City should televise this the same as Pleasanton. A lot of people are completely unaware of what is happening in Dublin. The Article was given to Mayor Houston. Comments on Hansen Hill Ranch Project (420-30) Chris Dynek, 11609 Amarillo Court stated they've been back in the Hansen Hills area and there are a lot of animals. There are lots of oak trees that take hundreds of years to grow. The animals range in size from insects to big animals. He has tracked a herd of deer all the way from the creek to the top of the hill. He has seen red foxes and kit foxes and they are endangered. He has also seen mallard ducks nesting back there. Phillip Schaefer felt we should stop building on Hansen Hills so the wildlife will still be there for the future of children. He has seen many beautiful animals running through the hills. If we build we will destroy many of the animals' homes. Our future children should be able to enjoy this. If we want to build something, we should build a national park for people to ride horseback or go on vacation. We should remember who was here first and take this to heart. He thanked the City Council for listening to his feelings about this issue. Mayor Houston thanked the young men for their comments. He clarified that a public hearing will be held later on the agenda related to the Hansen Hill Ranch project. Recoqnition of Veterans (610-50) Mayor Houston stated he wanted to recognize all our Veterans. Cm. Burton served in World War II and he congratulated him and all others in the Tri-Valley. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 262 CONSENT CALENDAR 7:11 p.m. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes (4.1) of Regular Meeting of April 24, 1995; Adopted (4.2 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 43 - 95 ADOPTING AN AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ALAMEDA COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (DISASTER PREPAREDNESS) Approved an agreement (4.3 600-30) with Singer & Hodges, Inc., for Landscape Architectural Services for the Dublin Sports Grounds Renovation, Phase I and approved a Budget Change Form; Approved an amendment to agreement (4.4 600-30) for Legal Services to reflect the revised name of law firm and to increase the maximum amount of compensation on which PERS contributions are based from $2,000 to $4,000 per month, and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 44 - 95 DESIGNATING RICK W. JARVIS AS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Awarded the bid (4.5 350-20) for Model 2028 ($7,389.15) and Model 6190 ($27,214.05) Copiers to Astro Business Products of Dublin and authorized Staff to issue the necessary Purchase Order; rejected all bids submitted for maintenance and authorized Staff to secure these services pursuant to the City's purchasing procedures; adopted the Budget Change Form; and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 45 - 95 DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY Photocopiers- Konica Model 2803 ($240) & Konica Model 7190 ($850) Received the City Treasurer's Investment Report (4.6 320-30) as of April 30, 1995 showing the City's investment portfolio of $21,675,322.74 with funds invested at an annual average yield of 5.897%; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 263 Adopted (4.7 320-10) RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 95 DESIGNATING 1ST NATIONWIDE BANK AS THE PROVIDER OF BANKING SERVICES FOR THE POLICE INVESTIGATION ACCOUNT Awarded the bid (4.9 350-20) for an unmarked Police vehicle, a 1994 Ford Thunderbird to Shamrock Ford for $14,938.50, and authorized Staff to issue a Purchase Order; Approved the Warrant Register (4.10 300-40) in the amount of $539,211.07; Dennis Fang, 7408 Hansen Drive requested that Item 4.8 [650-30] dealing with the March for Jesus be pul/ed from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Fang stated he has lived here for about a year and a ha/f, and he has enjoyedjus! abou! every day that hi~ family has lived here. He was present to speak in support of the March for Jesus. It was in Livermore last year and it was a very enjoyable experience. ?hb is an activity where Christians like himself can get together to enjoy something positive. ?hose who speak the name of Jesus Christ are there to have a supportive (;nd good time. this fl a positive evenL A Iai of the news we receive fl negative, this fi a remedy to ail the sad news that comes to our community. Dub/in i~ a city characterized by the number of churches that it has. ?he City b a religious p/ace and the march b a consistent thing for the people in the City; it fits dght in. ff w#1 be held May 2Z, from ~ a.m. to about I p.m. People will start at Sierra Court near the Cross Winds Church. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved the parade route (4.8 650-30) for the Tri-Valiey March for Jesus Parade to be held on May 27, 1995; waived the permit fee; authorized issuance of parade permit; and approved a $2,100 additional appropriation for Public Works costs; PUBLIC HEARING - HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, AND TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT 7:16 p.m. 6.1 (420-30) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Ms. Huston presented the Staff Report, displayed overhead charts and slides of the subject site. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 264 The Hansen Ranch subdivision, originally approved in 1989, involves 180 units on 147+ acres west of Silvergate Drive, north of Hansen Drive, and south of Rolling Hills Drive. California Pacific Homes, Inc., has requested a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment for revisions to Phase II of the approved Hansen Ranch subdivision. The amendments to the project would involve approximately 2.4 acres of land redesignated from open space to residential land use, with 16 homesites relocated into an oak/bay woodland area. The land use designations approved for the site included: · Low Density Single Family Residential (0.5 - 3.8 units per acre) - 57.2 acres (providing for 28 to 21 7 dwelling units) · Open Space/Stream Corridor- 89.8 acres The Open Space/Stream Corridor designation does not allow residential development. The Dublin General Plan contains policies which require the City to: 1) prohibit development within open space areas except development designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting; 2) allow roads to pass through open space areas provided that the roads are designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible so as not to damage the ecological or aesthetic value of the open space area; and 3) require revegetation of cut and fill areas with native trees, shrubs and grasses. The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed Study Session on April 17, and a Public Hearing on May 1, 1995. At that meeting, Ms. Buxton and her development team disagreed with most of the findings in the Staff Report; however, they did acknowledge several key points: 1. The proposal actually involves slightly more grading (0.96 acres more) and more removal of oak/bay woodland (0.18 acres more) in the proposed homesite relocation area than the approved plan; 2. The proposal is not consistent with Dublin General Plan policy 7.7.f, which reads: "Proh/bi! development w/thin designated open space oreo$ except tho! designed to enhance public $ofety ond the environment(;/setting". 3. The area to be graded for the sewerline '(shown as 6.6 acres near the Access Hiking Trail on Limits of Grading Exhibit) was not shown on the approved tentative map because it was unknown. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 265 After the close of the May 1 hearing, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending the City Council deny PA 95-007. Staff analyzed the proposed project in terms of its relation to the City of Dublin General Plan, as well as the significant environmental impacts which could result. The project's evaluation included significant research into the history of .the project and available documentation regarding the significant issues. Several outside agencies were consulted to obtain additional expertise and opinions. As a result of this analysis, Staff recommended that the project be denied for the following reasons: 1. The proposed GPA to redesignate 2.4 acres (overall) from Open Space/Stream Corridor to Low Density Single family Residential land use is inconsistent with several policies of the Dublin General Plan that were intended to protect oak woodlands, natural habitats, and aesthetic resources. 2. The relocation of 16 homesites into an environmentally sensitive area, which includes oak woodlands and riparian habitat, would result in significant environmental impacts which are greater than would occur under the previously approved plan. 3. The area where the 16 homesites are proposed was intended to be graded for a road and to remain an open space area; it was not intended to be developed .with 16 single- family houses. Staff presented the alternatives/options as defined in the Staff Report, including the project as proposed or a revised project. If the City Council were to deny the amendments, the project would revert back to the plan approved in 1989. In summary, Staff recommended for the reasons explained in the analysis, that the City Council adopt the Resolutions and Ordinance denying the General Plan Amendment, PD Rezoning, and Tentative Map Amendment. Ms. Huston stated on Friday, the Applicants met with Staff and presented an alternative which Staff had not had a chance to review in depth. Earlier in the day, a letter to Tasha Huston from Marti Buxton was delivered to the City Council outlining their revisions to the Amended Tentative Map for Phase II. The letter stated: "You have requested lhat I provide a writlen $1atement regarding the changes CPfl proposes to make 1o lhe Phase II Tentative Mop/PD Rezoning Site Plan which will be considered by the City Council at the May 8 meeting. For the OPA, the approximately 2.4 acres of land [overall] that will De redesignated from open space to residential land use will remain the same. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 266 CPH proposes to relocate ~ of the lots within the oreo requiring the GPA to the oreo between lots 141 and 742 fronting Inspiration Drive [plan attached). The lots that would be relocated are numbered 99, 98, 9Z 9~, 93 and 92 on the February 1995 submittal. Relocating these Iot~ ho~ two dgnificontly podtive impoct~: 1. it maintains the 200 foot wide Riparian Corridor to o/low wildlife passage os depicted on Attachment 4 of the City Council staff report {see attached). 2. ff is on improvement over the currently approved p/on in that it o/lows the reconstruction of the seasonal stream channel in the Riparian Corridor. The 1989 approved plan makes no provision for reconstructing the stream channel because the drainage remains underground until it reaches Morfi'n Canyon Creek and the grading contours ignore the natural, above-ground drainage flow. The oreo between tots 141 and 142 is on oreo that you mentioned at both the Planning Commission study session and May I meeting as o potential site for relocating some of the 16 lots. It is a Iogicol site because in the 1989 approved plan there ore lots in this some oreo: Placing lots in this oreo os approved in the 1959 plan will result in 1.31 acres of reforested oak bay/woodland beyond what is currently proposed. ff was o pleasure working with you, Mr. Tong, Coral and Mr. Thompson today to develop o revised p/an that is actually belier than the 1959 plan in that the £iporian Corridor con once again provide a natural hobitaf " Cm. Moffatt asked why the plan was changing and what the changes were. Ms. Huston stated after the plan was approved they discovered an earthquake fault along the road. Under the previously approved plan, the homesites were switched with the location of the road. Other changes were to reduce the amount of grading and to minimize some of the improvements in the area to allow for the number of homes. Marti Buxton stated they have revised their plan and the analysis was given by Ms. Huston on the previous plan. They have been processing this plan off and on for 6 years. They now want to build it. They have come up with a better plan to soften the visual impact and save the cost of grading. The crib walls were eliminated. A deep sewer requiring some access roads were also eliminated. Other lots which probably would not be built for decades were another reason. They are trying to make it more aesthetically pleasing and more economically feasible. Wherever you go on the site, you have to have some compromises and tradeoffs, or you won't be able to build. The 1989 approvals was in response to compromises and tradeoffs. They moved 6 lots out of the riparian corridor. They got the message loud and clear to open up the riparian corridor. They've been able to retain the 200' corridor. Ms. Buxton referenced the City Attorney's Memo to the Council which was included in the packet. They have gained information over the last 8 years to bring forth a better plan. The GP originally allowed collector streets in 3 different places. They moved their entrance over closer to Hansen Drive. They are requesting that the City Council look at the overall good of the project. A sheet out of their tentative map was passed out to the City Council showing CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 267 the drainage plan. [No copy wc~$ provided to the City Clerk for inc/us/on in the record.] Under their new proposal, they opened up and recreated natural drainage and allowed seasonal stream to occur again. They worked with Staff fo recreate the stream. This was compromise and tradeoff. The overall impacts of the plan must be considered. Ms. Buxfon indicated that several consultants were present to answer questions. Cm. Burton asked why all of their maps show a bulb at the end of the street. This road must be put in. He questioned the plan for extension. Ms. Buxton stated they intend to build the road all the way to the end of the property line. The Engineer showed it this way because they thought it would be a turn around for fire and police. They would even be happy to put up a huge billboard saying there may be future development there someday. Cm. Burton stated he would not approve a final map until the road is shown. Four years from now when they are selling the houses, people will say, look here, it shows on the map. There should be no misunderstanding that the road will eventually connect to the Nielsen property. Mayor Houston asked if this is something that can be put in the title report. Ms. Buxton felt this could be put in to run with the land. Ms. Silver advised that a statement disclosing that this is dedicated right-of-way for street purposes could be included. Ms. Buxton stated they could go as far as what will be built to connect to a future connection. There will have to be a substantial bridge to be able to connect. Mayor Houston asked about the riparian habitat being the most discussed issue. Ms. Buxton stated a 200' wide area is being opened for the animals,to go right down the riparian corridor. They have 320' on the other side of the lots and then there is another 100' wide corridor. The grading issue is more than financial. ~ Priscilla Brown, Attorney for the Dublin Unified School District, indicated the EIR was prepared in 1989 and the information was based on 1987 statistics. They had Murray School District then and the Dublin Unified School District wasn't even in existence. The law says whenever the City Council amends a GP you have to take the adequacy of the schools into account. Even though there is no increase in the number of houses, circumstances have changed CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 268 substantially. The facts are not the same. The Applicants are saying there is no additional impact and this may be true in some respects. The adequacy of the schools must be taken into account, however. The School District must point out that the facts surrounding this plan are different today. This is part of the big picture in Dublin that population is increasing and schools are in far different condition than they were back in 1987 and 1989. Cm. Moffatt stated if the original plan was used and the project built under that apprOval, her point would be mute. Ms. Brown stated this opens a window of opportunity, and they need every opportunity they can get. They feel that the portion of the EIR dealing with schools could be reexamined. If you look at the facts today, the 16 houses will create more of a burden on the School District than they did back in 1987. Cm. Burton asked h°w many new houses are in the plan today versus what was in the old plan. Ms. HuSton responded the number of units is 180 in the whole plan. This number has not changed. Mayor Houston read the statement from Chris Dynek who spoke earlier under Oral Communications. John Anderson 11174 Brittany Lane stated he wanted to talk about 3 points that impact this change. He asked if they could legally talk about the latest change from the Applicant since it had not gone before the Planning Commission. Ms. Silver explained there was no increase in the number of units. It was to relocate 16 units. The Applicant now wants to relocate 10 lots. The Planning Commission considered the relocation of 16 lots so she felt the City Council could consider the relocation of 10 of the 16 lots. The Planning Commission recommended denial of relocation of 16 lots. Mr. Anderson addressed development of the forested area. The open space would be reduced by 2.4 acres. He stated his comments would all relate to the original 16 lots. Mayor Houston pointed out that his numbers may not be applicable in light of the Applicant's change. Mr. Anderson stated in order to address the new plan, he would need time to review it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 269 Cm. Burton pointed out there would be another public hearing for further discussion. Ms. Silver stated it would depend on the action that the City Council takes tonight about whether there will be another public hearing. What is before the City Council tonight is a recommendation by the Planning Commission for denial, and the Applicant is proposing to relocate only 10 units. Mr. Anderson continued his comments about the greater woodlands providing greater habitats for creatures. Two acres of riparian corridor was proposed to be disturbed. Six of the homes are being drawn away from the original proposal. The remaining homes will still impact this riparian habitat. Statistics were presented related to Martin Canyon Creek. The required fill and placement of a 30" pipe separated and isolated the riparian corridor along the tributary to Martin Canyon Creek. This was taken from the EIR. With regard to resource management, the question becomes, how are we managing resources in Dublin? Our resources are cash, people and the land that we have. From a safety standpoint, how do we convince ourselves to go ahead and build homes in this earthquake area. With regard to the vision for Dublin, we need to ask if this project is consistent with the General Plan. Staff has pointed out that several of the GP policies are being violated. He questioned whether building in this area is in the public interest. Cm. Burton asked if he was against the whole project. Mr. Anderson stated unfortunately he doesn't have any say about whether the old plan goes forward or not. However, he is against the GP Amendment. Cm. Moffatt asked if the City Council could somehow move this around to fit the GP, if he would not be against the project? Mr. Anderson stated the GP policies would have to be changed to fit the project. Staff has cited the sections adequately. David Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane commented that Ms. Buxton stated the project was adopted in 1989. If it were brand new, he felt it wouldn't fly. It is not appropriate to have stub roads. People are quite sensitive to our hills. The direction now is apparently to go east. This makes a statement as to how we manage our land. He would prefer to not see this develop. We have plenty on our plate in developing to the east. He does not dispute their rights and he is not arguing against development because it has already been decided. The question becomes what damage will be done to the riparian corridor of some significance to our area. The City Council must have overriding facts to amend or do away with the prior consideration on this project. He has not heard any facts stated that show that CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 270 consistent with the riparian corridor. He did not feel they could say there are any facts. Sixteen homes apparently can't be developed because they found an earthquake fault. Will this prevent the development? This should not preclude the development. It will cost out differently, but he felt Dublin could absorb this. What is overriding here? Where are the facts? Nothing has been presented. We must examine the circumstances of where we will put homes. To grant this without a lot of defendable facts could lead people to say that future developments could occur with modifications on an as needed basis to environmental considerations and other developers could come back and make changes. The citizens will be required to closely monitor what is happening. It will create a precedence. Wide latitude does not mean you can disregard the facts. He asked that the City Council follow the Planning Commission's overwhelming denial of the project. Mayor Houston asked that the slide again be displayed showing the riparian corridor. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane stated she has been with this project since 1986 when Gordon Jacoby made presentations. They argued about every single tree and every single canyon. She has great difficulty in accepting that grading for a 40' road somehow makes the 7,000' lots available. She suggested that grading along the cul-de-sac should be done once when the bridge is put in. It is an extremely sensitive area. Record an easement and the issues of grading should be assigned where they properly belong. A mitigation tradeoff is not possible on this project. The developer has at least made some effort at moving the lots. They have had very little time to review what the issues are. She asked that the City Council either deny at this time or delay until the real implications can be taken care of. The tradeoff in grading and riparian corridors are like comparing applies to oranges. It will take hundreds of years to restore the quality of the riparian habitat. Relocation has nothing to do with the earthquake zone; it has to do with the fact that the developers don't want to spend a fortune on grading and she did not blame them. Please don't force massive grading in this area more than once. She clarified that she is not advocating a land lock. Mayor Houston asked if the riparian corridor is a definable object. He questioned if it is interpreted differently by different agencies. Ms. LaBar explained where a lot of damage would occur. Cm. Burton referenced the map delivered today. He did not see the creek in the contour lines. It is a secondary seasonal drain. Ms. LaBar stated in California most of the riparian habitat is only seasonal. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 271 Ms. Huston responded to the definition of the riparian corridor. The actual definition of riparian is defined as a waterway. The riparian corridor defined in the EIR is that area within 100' setback of the seasonal creek. It is a 200' wide segment with the creek running in the middle. Cm. Barnes aSked if the new drawing maintains the corridor. Mayor Houston noted there are 2 and stated he assumed the higher up you go the wider it will be. Ms. Huston stated the EIR identified only one corridor and the Martin Canyon Creek corridor. There is also a great area of oak woodlands. Elliot Healy, Betlen Drive stated he would like to know if there was anyone on the City Council who has never walked and hiked up in the canyon. With the change presented tonight, it is difficult for citizens to fully understand what is going on and when an amendment to permit or deny 16 homes comes in, it gets really confusing. He stated he spent a lot of time trying to educate himself on what was involved. We are now changing the ballgame. The developer is asking for approval tonight without the citizens really understanding what the hell is going on. He stated he would be absolutely stunned if the City Council does not have a hearing on specifically what their plan is to be. It's fine to come back with a new plan, but for the City Council to have the information before them for only a few days, how can they make an educated decision. Cm. Barnes and Cm. Moffatt were in on this plan in 1989 and they know how the people came out to the hearings. They felt this was a reasonable compromise. Open space is very important to the citizens of Dublin. Consider the Eden Development fiasco. Most people felt the City Council was not in touch with the citizens. He did not feel that any of the 16 homes should be in the corridor. He thanked the young men who spoke earlier and stated he appreciated the fact that young people will speak up. Ms. Huston responded to a couple of issues which were brought up. The question of the main overriding concern raised by Staff and the Planning Commission, she clarified that there was not one main concern, but rather several concerns were brought up. The riparian habitat was brought up as well as the loss of oak woodlands, blocking wildlife between open space areas and visual impacts of grading. Another significant issue was the loss of open space, especially in the vicinity of the public creek hiking trail. An exhibit was shown displaying the Applicant's proposed change. Staff identified that 6 of the lots would require a significant amount of grading not approved under the original tentative map. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 272 Ms. Huston displayed a summary chart listing what Staff identified as the main issues. There are 5 main issues remaining with both the 16 and the 10 lot proposal, including: loss of riparian habitat; wildlife movement; loss of trees overall; open space; and visual (grading of knolls). Mayor Houston questioned in going from 16 to 10, how the open space loss could be exactly the same? Ms. Huston explained that the 2.4 acres is a net figure. Wildlife Biologist Malcolm Sproul stated with regard to the riparian corridor it's best to speak to what is in the GP. A number of species grow because of the amount of moisture. Another is clearly a drainage. The 1989 plan which was approved, approved a roadway connecting two phases of the development. Both plans completely block the riparian corridor and both place major fills and significant tree removal. It will place a connecting corridor as shown on the GP. Cm. Burton asked if the contour map shows after the grading is done. Mr. Sproul stated it is conceptual only at this time. Cm. Moffatt asked about lots 88, 89, 90 and 91 which project down toward Martin Canyon Creek. He thought this would be a natural runway for wildlife. Will this slow down the migration of animals. Mr. Sproul stated there are native species of mammals and birds, and there is sufficient area for all to move in and around Martin Canyon Creek. Bob Leever, Engineer discussed the topo map. Cm. Howard asked for more information about the reasons for removing the 6 houses. What was the problem with those? Mr. Leever stated it deals mostly with the knolls. The knoll is a natural 4 to 1 slope. You get to a point where you would have to regrade the whole hill. Ms. Buxton elaborated further on this question. She stated she also wanted to correct a fact about the 900' open space. They have over 600' of opening versus the 900' that was there. They have disagreements about Staff's charges about greater and less. The open space is land use designation. She referenced Staff's 4 concerns. They would mitigate loss of oak CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 273 woodlands as required. Overall they have opened up the part that they were told is the most important part and that is the riparian corridor. The overall concept with the changes they've made they believe is a better project than what is currently approved. Ms. Buxton corrected facts made by Ms. Brown, DUSD. She took 4 significant pages from their master plan related to impacts on elementary, middle and high school. The EIR analyzed and approved up to 222 homes, so the number of homes that could have been approved was substantially more. The student generation figure and school capacities were discussed. Mr. Healy stated for the benefit of the citizens present, it should be pointed out there are some statements from the Fish & Game about what is and isn't good about building in the habitat area. Their expert is in their hire, which is within their rights. There is no one present however from Fish & Game to speak to their comments. He noted on their original plan the location of some of the homes and a location where there is a big window where no homes will be located. Some of the homes were like a sore thumb in the area where they were proposed. When people spend a lot of time at hearings and something is decided, they feel this is what it is. The developer then comes back and throws another angle at it. He hoped the City Council would not make a decision tonight because the citizens have not had a chance to go through all this. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton stated he felt this was pretty serious and he wanted to support the idea of denying the proposal and agree with the Planning Commission and send it back to the Planning Commission. He is not against the project, but there deserves to be a new process with the latest changes. A lot of people are concerned. This is too significant a change for the City Council to just step in at this time. Cm. Howard stated she agreed. Mayor Houston commented on the options provided. Cm. Burton stated he felt there were so many loose ends and he felt it had been slipshod. There is not an overhead of what they are proposing. It has been very difficult for the public to follow what is being considered. Send it back to the Planning Commission to come forward with what they feel is the best plan. Cm. Barnes stated she felt to deny it would be premature. There is room for compromise. Once it's built, this is forever. She hoped they would always be open to compromise. She CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 274 would like more input before it is denied. She qUestioned if they could refer it back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Silver stated they could refer it back to the Planning Commission or could take action to relocate 16 lots or a lesser number of lots within the same area. Mayor Houston referenced recent history with PETCO where they got together with Staff to work out a plan. Not closing the doors is very important. He did not feel that anyone was in favor of the 16 lot proposal but the 10 lot deserves looking into. Cm. Burton felt the denial was that 16 lots is not acceptable. The new information should be addressed separately. Mr. Ambrose pointed out another aspect of the issue is some of the options result in a little more finality. If the City Council denies the application, they must come back with a whole new proposal. They could either refer it back to the Staff or the Planning Commission with specific areas of concern which are important so those areas can be focused on. Then the applicant could focus on those areas. Cm. Moffatt felt it was generally agreed that the City Council could reopen it and see what direction they want it to go. He personally had a problem with the 16 homes and also the access road could perhaps be put someplace else. There must be other areas that we could desensitize it and have a project as good as the one approved in 1989. He suggested they take another look and send it back to the Planning Commission. He was not in favor of the location of the 16 homes and suggested that they look at moving the access road along Martin Canyon Creek. Mayor Houston stated he would like to have them look at the 10 lot alternative, look at alternatives for the road and of primary importance, protect the riparian habitat corridor, and extension of road issue. Have the Planning Commission look at these 3 issues. Cm. Barnes stated she could go along with this. Ms. Buxton stated they need to make a decision about whether to start. She asked if the City Council could leave the public hearing open to allow further input. She asked if Staff could work with the Applicant. Cm. Moffatt stated it would go to the Planning Commission and then back to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 275 Cm. Burton stated they brought forth a new plan just a few days ago and it should go back before the Planning Commission. Ms. Buxton reminded that they got a denial to Phase II from the Planning Commission. They are limited in time and the building season is limited. She stated she hoped the City Council would continue the public hearing. Mayor Houston stated he had no problem with it coming back direCtly to the City Council. Cm. Burton stated he felt strongly that it should go back to the Planning Commission. He felt sorry for the developer, but they could have brought this plan to the Planning Commission. Ms. Huston stated it would help Staff if there were clarification on other issues identified by Staff. These were wildlife movement, loss of trees, and the loss of open space in general. Cm. Moffatt felt that by looking at the sensitive areas these would be addressed. Mr. Ambrose clarified that the area of focus is the area where the lots are. He clarified the area of concern on the map. Cm. Barnes stated she was worried about people talking about a lot of different things. Putting in a road all the way around will cause a lot of trees to have to be removed. Everyone should remember certain facts. She clarified that Ms. Huston commented on some of the slides that no matter what happens, a lot of the trees will be removed. This has already been approved. We should keep talking. If it is going to take so much time, perhaps it should come back directly to the City Council. Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council could continue this public hearing and refer it to Staff to review and flush out all the issues and then it could be brought back to the City Council. Ms. Buxton stated there is a grading window this construction season. If you miss the window, the City Council will be looking at this project again next year. Although the public hearing had already been closed, Mike Erving pointed out on the map another area which would mean a significant loss of trees. Cm. Burton asked if there is a way this can go before the Planning Commission without delaying it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 276 On motion of Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. HOward, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to continue the public hearing to the May 22 City Council meeting with direction to Staff to review the 10 lot alternative, stressed the major importance of the riparian corridor, and also the issue of the road. Cm.'s Burton and Moffatt voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISION TO ENCROACHMENT FEE SCHEDULE (FEE FOR PERMIT TO INSTALL BANNER ON CITY BANNER POLES) AND MODIFICATION TO CITY BANNER POLICY 10:01 p.m. 6.2 (270-10) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and stated during Fiscal Year 1992-93, the Council determined that as a cost-saving measure to discontinue issuance of permits to non-profit organizations for use of the City's banner poles on San Ramon Road. At the time the service was discontinued, the average cost for the City's maintenance crew to install and remove a banner was approximately $400. Mr. Thompson explained that the adopted permit fee for use of the banner poles is $50. At the time that permit issuance was discontinued, the City Council specified that an organization could pay the entire cost of installation. With the recent Rowell Ranch Rodeo request discussion, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a revised banner policy and revised fee schedule to reflect two options: 1 ) the applicant could pay the entire cost of installation/maintenance/removal by the 'City's maintenance crew; or 2) the applicant could provide a professional installer which met insurance and traffic control requirements. Mr. Thompson stated the $50 fee is proposed to remain as a processing fee, whether the applicant chooses to have the City install the banner or provides their own installer. If the applicant chooses to have the City crew install the banner and pay the actual cost of the work, it is proposed to require a $500 deposit to cover the cost. If the cost is less than $500, the balance of the deposit would be returned to the applicant. If the cost exceeds $500, the applicant would be billed for the balance of the cost. Mr. Thompson stated if the applicant chooses to use a professional installer, the installer would be required to provide the same insurance coverage as the applicant, and name the City as an additional insured. The applicant's insurance would cover the banner construction, and the installer's insurance would cover the work being performed in the public right-of-way and the physical installation of the banner, tn addition, the installer would need to provide a traffic control plan for City Staff approval prior to performing the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 277 work and would be required to sign an agreement to provide interim maintenance of the banner in the event of wind damage. Mr. Thompson summarized by saying while many non-profit organizations would not be able to pay the actual cost of installation by the City crew, it is possible that some of the organizations could get a professional installer at a reduced price or as donated labor. Therefore, this change may allow more organizations to take advantage of this advertising location. Cm. Burton stated he agreed that this makes a lot of sense. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. MOffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 95 ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS (REVISION TO FEE FOR USE OF CITY'S BANNER POLES) and RESOLUTION. NO. 48 - 95 ADOPTING POLICY FOR USE OF CITY BANNER POLES ON SAN RAMON ROAD GRAFFITI TASK FORCE REPORT 10:04 p.m. 8.1 (530-20) Management Assistant Barker presented the Staff Report and advised that in August, 1994, a Graffiti Task Force was formed with a goal of reviewing ways of eliminating graffiti in the community as quickly as it is put up. The Task Force reviewed 3 program areas: Eradication, Enforcement and Education, as well as issues and costs involved in each program area. The recommended actions impact different City departments, including: City Attorney, Administrative Services, Police, Public Works and Planning. The total cost to implement all programs discussed in the Staff Report is estimated to be approximately $52,000 in Staff time and new costs. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 278 Mr. Barker stated the Graffiti Task Force spent a considerable amount of time and effort discussing the issues. Additionally, the Task Force discussed specific issues with the District Attorney's Office and the City Attorney to be ina position of recommending solutions that make practical and legal sense to implement. The recommendations listed in the report are the result of considerable debate and dialogue designed to build consensus among the diverse participants. Mr. Barker stated due to costs and other organizational issues, Staff recommended that the City Council deliberate on the Task Force recommendations and identify which programs should be incorporated as higher service levels for consideration during the 1995-96 budget hearings. Several slides were shown illustrating the problem with graffiti in Dublin. Bob Trimble, Chairman of the Task Force assured everyone that there really is a cancer growing in Dublin called graffiti. They don't want to call these people artists; they are vandals. Graffiti does accumulate and it does grow. He recently went out with Sgt. DiFranco and they took over 200 pictures during a 5 hour field trip showing graffiti. He urged the City Council to walk very softly but carry a big stick. Walk softly because we have to be careful about publicity that can come out of decisions and recognition given to these people. We don't want to allow them any publicity whatsoever. We want the punishment mechanism to be there. He thanked City Staff, particularly Bo Barker and Mr. Ambrose and Chief Rose, Lt. Gomes, and many others. Cm. Burton commented they had done a good job. He asked if there is anything that has been suggested related to getting in touch with absentee landlords. Mr. Trimble commented that this was one of their major stumbling blocks, but he thought there was some information on this. Mayor Houston relayed a situation where a city adopted an ordinance and the taggers retaliated. Mr. Trimble stated this is called bombing. As citizens we need to be more vigilant than we've ever been. People standing around and seemingly doing nothing should get our attention. It goes on mostly midnight to 6 a.m., although several have been arrested during broad daylight. Once we publicize that we are serious about dealing with graffiti the mechanism must be in place to deal with it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 279 Mr. Barker displayed an overhead "Summary of the Graffiti Task Force Recommendations and Costs". Eight recommendations were shown. Cm. Howard asked who people would call right now to report graffiti. Mr. Barker stated someone would call 911 to report if they see someone spraying. Mr. Rankin stated a non emergency call could go to dispatch at 462-1212. Mayor Houston commented that he had a business over in San Francisco several years ago and immediately removed any graffiti that was put on. What about the places like the light poles where someone won't get out there that day. Can the City go onto someone's property and take care of it? Mr. Barker stated most business owners want to remove it immediately. To enter private property we need property owner permission, which means a release. If the City were to' do it there would be additional workers' compensation issues to resolve. We want to make it the property owner's responsibility to remove it. Although there is no perfect answer, through the volunteer program and the GRAVE program are mechanisms we can institute to take care of irradication. The light poles will soon belong to the City. Zone 7 canals have a lot of graffiti. This might be another good area for the GRAVE program to address. Mayor Houston commented he had read aboUt different kinds of paint you can put on buildings that make it more difficult to stick. Mr. Barker stated you apply the material and then you take a solvent, but if it gets tagged twice you have to redo it. It's very expensive. Our maintenance department felt it might not be cost efficient for us at this time. Other cities are using this in certain high and harder to reach places. Mr. Ambrose stated he had some experience With this down in Southern California and it is very expensive. About 16 years ago, it was about $100 per gallon. Cm. Moffatt commented over in Livermore at the toxic waste center, there is some real inexpensive paint. With regard to implementation and developing an ordinance, the League of California Cities has a whole computer full of ordinances such as this. We could probably get a disc with 300 or 400 ordinances and then pick and choose. He noted when he had his business, a kid broke one of his $700 plate glass windows and his homeowners insurance paid for it. Another avenue would be to use the small claims court. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 ,nc;E 280 Cm. Burton asked if there was anything going through the courts about restriction to free speech. Ms. Silver stated she was not aware of any cases. Mayor Houston stated a while back the City of Livermore was talking about having each city work cooperatively to hire someone for 2 or 3 cities. He asked if this was reviewed? Mr. Barker stated they first must differentiate between private and public property. It is the private property owner's responsibility to remove it from their property. MCE proposes looking at potentially buying special equipment or at hiring a contractor to remove all graffiti. This is something that we will continuously evaluate. The cost of contracting out at this time exceeds what we can have MCE do it for. cm. Barnes admitted she was the one who asked where the graffiti is. The School District is very good about removing graffiti immediately. She asked about private homes, fences, cars, etc. Mr. Barker stated the majority of graffiti is in the Commercial districts. Mr. Ambrose stated this has become somewhat of a free speech issue. Up in the Briarhill area a neighbor retaliated against another neighbor by writing something on their own fence. Mr. Rankin stated fences in homes typically face a street and our property maintenance ordinance can address it. Cm. Moffatt asked if we could get permission through the business license process. Mr. Ambrose stated he wasn't sure the city could afford this. Right now we don't have anybody to go through the property tax roles and locate people and ask them to take care of clean up. A last resort would be for us to clean it up through the public nuisance process. Cm. Barnes stated she likes the idea of a graffiti brochure. We should put in how much it costs the City to take care of graffiti. These figures are shocking. How do we intend to get the brochure out? Mr. Barker stated we will use the resources of our crime prevention unit, the neighborhood watch, merchant's alert program, etc. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8,1995 PAGE 281 Mayor Houston stated he would like everything put in for consideration at budget time. Cm. Burton asked about some type of a reward system. Lt. Gomes commented that he knew of a city in Southern California that has a large amount of money in a reward fund and they've paid out only about $100. Cm. Barnes stated if judges aren't hearing these cases, then we aren't getting any prosecutions so there are no rewards being paid out. By a consensus, the Council agreed that Staff should put all costs in for consideration during the 1995-96 Budget deliberations. The City Council thanked members of the Task'Force for their help. OTHER BUSINESS 10:45 p.m. Upcomin,q Meetin,q Reminders (610-05) Mr. Ambrose reported that the DRFA meeting of May 15 which was going to be canceled may now need to be held. Cm. Barnes stated this will be a problem for her as she has to be some place else at 7:30 p.m. Earthquake Preparedness Maps (520-30) Cm. Howard asked if the City will be getting some of the revised earthquake maps. Mr. Thompson stated we probably could get a Supply. Cm. Howard stated they show where potential damage would be. Mr. Rankin stated he passed some information to Rose Maciaso CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 282 Polioe StatistiCs (580-60) Cm. Barnes reported that she put her last Police Report away for safe keeping and now can't find it. She would like to know if the Police Department could do a little research on car burglaries and damage, if it is done night or day. This may be an area we need to start beefing up. Lt. Games stated the majority of burglaries occur during hours of darkness and in commercial areas or apartments. As much as we get hit, surrounding cities get hit at least twice as much. Upcomin.c1 Meetin,qs (610-05) Cm. Burton asked if the school liaison meeting sCheduled for May 17 at 3:30 p.m., could be rescheduled. He wants to participate in the RoWell Ranch Rodeo activities and the timing will be difficult. Mayor Houston felt this was an important meeting, but it could be rescheduled. The Facilities Task Force will meet on May 11 and will be discussing the gymnasium project. He asked Staff to check to see if the school liaison meeting coUld be scheduled for Monday or Tuesday, May 15 or 16. Community TV Live Call-In Show (1050-50) The Council discussed the CTV30 live call-in show that Channel 30 wants to schedule. The CoUncil determined that everyone would be aVailable on Wednesday, June 21, except for Cm. Burton. Staff was directed to notify CTV30 to schedule the event on June 21, 1995. Rotary Club Sponso~in.q Circus (950-40) Cm. Burton reported that on Memorial day weekend, there will be a circus in Dublin. It will be at Camp Parks on Sunday and Monday. Tickets are $4.00 and it is a fund-raiser for the Rotary Club, so money will go back into the community. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8,1995 PAGE 283 Sub-Re._qional Pilot P annin,q Project (140-10) Cm. Moffatt stated they had a meeting of the Tri-Valley Planning Committee and issues related to the regional planning strategy. Copies were given to the City Council on urban growth lines. The City Council should mark those areas they wish to talk about in order to help facilitate the discussion. Any additional issues they want to discuss should be plugged in. Meetinq Reports (610-05) Cm. Moffatt stated he had attended the Tri-Valley Business Association meeting and a synopsis was available on what Delaine Eastin is proposing for education in California. CLOSED SESSION At 11:01 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to discuss: 10.1 (640-30) Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a): Myers et al vs. City of Dublin, Alameda County Superior Court Action No. V- 008171-9. 10.2 CANCELED (600-30) Personnel - Public Employee Performance EvalUation: City Manager- Government Code Section 54957. 10.3 (Added) (600-30) Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) - City Negotiators: Mayor Houston and Cm. Barnes - Unrepresented employee: City Manager. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION City Attorney Silver announced that no action was taken in closed session. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8, 1995 PAGE 284 ADJOURNMENT 11:30 p.m. 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Coundl, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. '" ~,J "~ Mayor CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING May 8i 1995 PAGE 285